Talk:Fat acceptance movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fat acceptance movement article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Disjointed writing style

This article is written very poorly. Furthermore, it does not move smoothly; consider greasing and editting for a smoother flow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.27.212 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your IP has been making edits on May 3rd on this article, that are considered vandalism. Please refer to Wikipedia's help section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents for how to post, and their guidelines. Also for information on the movement refer to further reading links contained in the article. Kal-spontaneous (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant section should be deleted?

Here's the section I noticed today...not sure when it was added:

"Obesity in pornography"

"A recently growing movement in pornography has been a push for "big beautiful women" [bbw]. These women are admired by many for their lush curvature and abnormally large breasts. Furthermore, many thinner men feel that a bigger woman is perfect for domination, and thus are attracted to them."

As far as I'm concerned, pornography isn't really relevant to the fat acceptance movement. Not everything having to do with fat people is *part* of the fat acceptance movement. So why is this here? Why not write a separate article on fat pornography, fat admirers, or the BBW scene if that's your thing? This is an article about a *social and political movement*, not everything and anything related to fat people.

Should we remove this section? Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it, if my changes are accepted. My apologies if I overstepped. If anyone has a burning reason why it should remain or be added, please let's discuss. Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is very stupid

What the hell is going on here? Is there a wikipedia page for people trying to create acceptance for cigarette smokers or other people who put their health at severe risk through incredibly unhealthy lifestyle choices? Heart disease is a bigger killer than lung cancer and it's only increasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by REGULAR-NORMAL (talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It smacks of some insecure folks shoving a disguised opinion piece into wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by REGULAR-NORMAL (talk • contribs) 04:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops just learned how to sign things REGULAR-NORMAL (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone doubts the need for a movement that protects fat people against the hatred and prejudice of society, all they need do is read this talk page, esp. the "some vandalism" section. If the same statements and stereotypes were promoted against any other group of people (and they are), it would be immediately called out as bigotry (which it is.) Peggynature (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
REGULAR-NORMAL: The whole argument that this article should not exist because fat people do not really experience discrimination/ that discrimination against fat people is actually justifid because they "choose" to be fat has been already extensively discussed in the past. Please check the archives before you bring this issue up again. Also, for the existence of this article it is absolutely irrelevant if the fat acceptance movement has a justified cause - what is relevant is if the movement exists (and it does). (By the way, the fact that fat people experience discrimination in the US and many other countries is well documented in the social sciences literature - so even if this argument would be relevant it there is overwhelming evidence that it is false.)
If you have anything verifiable to add to the criticism section be my guest - although I personally cannot see where you will find any source that will show that fat discrimination is justified and/or has any positive effects on a societal level.--145.116.230.249 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, for the existence of this article it is absolutely irrelevant if the fat acceptance movement has a justified cause - what is relevant is if the movement exists (and it does). Agreed. Sorry for responding to the bait. Peggynature (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Peggynature, I used to take the bait all the time - and as can be seen above I still partially take it - I guess I should have left out the whole "fat discrimination is a fact" and "I doubt you will come up with any evidence that sizeism benefits society".--145.116.230.249 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the issue isn't whether the movement exsists, its whether it matters or not. If Every wacko group of fetishists with a message board cant make a dumb article to make their movement sound bigger than it is then none of them can, and thats all this article is. There isn't any information on such a cause existing in any large form (well, actually that depends on which way you take that last statement) and while i've no doubt that a group of morbidly obese people did at one point try to cash in on civil rights by treating their lack of self respect, slovenly behavior, and nonexistant willpower as a sort of minority group that they belong to, and im sure the group was quite massive (but only made up of a few people lol see i did it again) but the issue is again not whether it exists but whether it's really important enough to be written about on this site, which its not. Delete this article and start channeling the energy you spend bitching about being persecuted into something more productive like losing weight.
Okay, the issue isn't whether the movement exsists, its whether it matters or not. That is true. And that is why we're in the process of citing evidence. Almost everything else you said is ad hominem. Whether this article is justified will be based on the evidence, not rhetoric. 99.231.184.87 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok fine but please for the love of god delete that link to fat nudes in external links. Wikipedia is not a place for sexual deviants to find porn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's some evidence: there are no fat people from Zimbabwe. It is physically impossible to gain weight if you consume less calories than your body uses. Want real evidence? Check out this article (Resting Metabolic Rates)where they found non-obese males have a resting metabolic rate of 1338 Cal/day (5600 kJ/day) and obese males actually have a higher resting metabolic rate of 1726 Cal/day (7223 kJ/day). When adjusted for body mass, the obese and non-obese groups showed no statistical difference in metabolic rate. Sure, genes may play a small role, but in short, it really comes down to how much you eat versus how much you exercise.130.127.119.113 (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Evidence for what? The article you are citing would indicate that fat people eat more than thin people - there are also articles who come to a different conclusion, but okay - fine so far. But a) it is irrelevant for the existence of this article - the FA movement still exists, and I think we have sufficiently documented its notability and b) higher calorie consumption and/or less physical exercise by fat people would still be no reason for discriminatin them. Also, appetite is to quite a large degree physiologically regulated. A person with a larger appetite is more likely to eat more (duh). So even if fat people eat more than thin people on average (and even if this is true for the average it does not mean it is true for single persons) you still couldn't claim that this is all due to lack of willpower or whatever. And even if it would be due to lack of willpower in this specific domain, you cannot claim that it shows fat people have less willpower in all other domains. Plus, even if it would be true for all other domains you still would have to show that this supposed lack of willpower of fat people damages society in general to have ANY justification to discriminate against fat people.--145.116.230.249 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


When did I say I wanted to delete the article? Thanks for assuming my intention. Also, you are right in concluding that the result of the article means that obese people eat much more than normal people. By the way, I would love to see an article that concludes the average obese person has a lower BMR than a normal person. You point the finger at physiology: an innate cause for an unusually large appetite. This is almost certainly true for about 5% of severely obese people who have MC4R mutations which messes with the ability to suppress appetite; this causes them to binge eat. So, if your pointing finger points true, then appetite suppression drugs should be the key to losing weight for obese people. However, appetite suppression drugs tend to work poorly over the long-term. In this study, patients only lost an average of 27 lbs. after 104 weeks. After that point, they began to gain weight back. This suggests that physiology is not as much to blame as you think. Basically, we are not dealing with genes or lack or willpower (again, thank you for putting words in my mouth: I don't think it's a lack of willpower), we are dealing with an addiction, and addictions are NOT supposed to be accepted, they are supposed to be treated and corrected for the well-being of all people involved both directly and indirectly, whether it is a cocaine, sex, or food addiction. That's why the starter of this section is confused: why should we consider a food addict's movement for acceptance ok while we would think it ludicrous to accept a sex addict's movement?66.253.195.68 (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I decided to get an account to make it easier for others to identify me (I am user 145.116.230.249). I am not going to argue with you - there is plenty of information out there (yes, information from peer-reviewed scientific journals) that does at least casts some doubts on your points. But there is one thing I would like to point out: You opened your last contribution with "Here is some evidence" without ever saying how this evidence was relevant for the article - in fact, you still didn't do that, so the only option I had was to speculate on what exactly you wanted to say. You only said that in your opinion fat people are addicted to food - but not how that point adds anything to the article. If you want to add to the criticism section, be my guest.--Sannanina (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Do images of nudes automatically constitute porn? These images are not explicitly sexual. And why, at any rate, would someone who finds fat people attractive have to be sexually deviant? Sounds rather trollish to me. 99.231.184.87 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we please put this discussion to bed. It's just become an argument about people's opinions on fat people. This isn't the place. The credibility issue has been addressed and editors are in the process of adding credible referencing and improving the article. Second stop assuming things about fat people like "we all over-eat". If your at all interested check out myths about fat people that's been noted on the article (See bottom Note section). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kal-spontaneous (talk • contribs) 05:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
And Kal, I am generally with you on this - this discussion truly does not belong here. But honestly, I have ignored the same old arguments concerning why the movement should not exist/ should not be supported a hundred times - they still keep popping up. So for all the people who believe that fat acceptance is irresponsible or stupid - just find relevant sources for your arguments and add to the criticism section. No one here is stopping you from doing that.--Sannanina (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sannanina, thank you for your work on the article and your input on the discussions. You are right, no one is stopping the people who have beliefs contrary to us from contributing relevant criticisms to the article. Kal-spontaneous (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Word for discrimination against fat people

Is there a proper word for fat discrimination? There are plenty of references to 'Stoutism' on the internet if you wish to google the word. As a word of assurance to any militant pc fatties out there who think I'm being facetious I can assure you that I'm no thin thing myself.

Anything we find would probably be a neologism. One that I have heard is "sizeism". I personally would stick with phrases like "weight-based discrimination". Joie de Vivre 18:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I did a quick search on Web of Science to look which terms are used in articles on this topic. There are (although very few) hits for both, "fatism" and "sizeism", none for "stoutism" (a word that I have never come across before either). There are also hits for fat prejudice (which is, of course, strictly speaking not the same as fat-based discrimination), weight-based discrimination, etc. I personally believe that weight based discrimination is not very accurate because people are not discriminated against due to their weight but due to their perceived body fat - a very muscular person with a high weight is usually not discriminated against based on weight as far as I know. --R.C.B. 19:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The term "anti-fat bias" has been used in the peer-reviewed literature on this topic. A search for this keyword on PubMed pulls up 11 articles.Peggynature (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just found another interesting resource from the Rudd Center. It's a report regarding weight bias and the need for public policy changes. This could be added as a citation or in Further reading. Could someone please add it? Thanks. http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/what/policy/pdfs/WeightBiasPolicyRuddReport.pdf Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This article seems biased towards fat people. I suspect that this is because this article is probably written by the overweight.

This assumes that the size of the person writing the article somehow makes a difference. This is a common fallacy, called the Ad Hominem attack.

You either misunderstand the nature of the fallacy or the original comment. The size of the person writing the article certainly does make a difference to its probable content. A fat person is more likely to write an article sympathetic to fat people than a thin person is, that is simply human nature. And such, sections of an article sympathetic to fat people are more likely to have been written by fat people. An Ad Hominem Fallacy would be asserting that the article itself is somehow less truthful due to the fact that it was written by a fat person. In reality, whether the article is written by a fat person or a thin person, its value remains constant. --Tzler 09:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the "criticism" and "issues with the movement" sections are full of weasel words. GlueyPorchBoy 15:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all: The section is called "issues within the movement". Secondly: Could you please clarify what exactly you mean by "weasel words"? It would be particularly helpful if you could point out specific sentences.--R.C.B. 23:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Here I will do it for you:

Due to intrinsic linguistic misunderstandings and differing definitions of the word "acceptance," some "fat activists" (this is a weasel 'word' some evidence or a quote of someone would prove this but instead we only know that an indefinite number or people 'believe' this) believe the phrase refers to any fat person fighting for equal rights and opportunities, regardless of whether or not that person believes that the pursuit of reduction in a person's body mass is feasible. Other (Who? Is there any thing that can link to prove this?) "fat activists" define "fat acceptance" more strictly, applying that phrase only to fat people who are not pursuing a reduction in their body mass, and use phrases such as "fat activist" to describe fat people and "allies" working more generally on civil rights issues pertaining to fat people. An additional issue with regard to language is that many in the fat acceptance movement (Again, who are these 'many' people) find the terms "obese" and "overweight" offensive, as they are often used to make overtly prejudiced statements seem more clinical or scientific. The word "fat" is generally preferred.

I dont mind this entry but seriously you cant make assertions without actually providing some evidence as to who is saying what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.221.110.4 (talk) 20:00, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if this is meant by "weasel words" than the criticism above is valid. In light of the context (i.e., the previous comment that the article is biased and that this is so because its authors are presumably mainly fat people) I originally interpreted "weasel words" differently...
I know this is not good enough, but anybody who hangs around fat acceptance blogs like Big Fat Blog or other fat acceptance websites will have come across discussions of the topics mentioned many times. I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but as far as one of the well known people in the movement are concerned, I am very sure that Paul McAleer from Big Fat Blog is "anti-diet" as well as against the use of the words obesity and overweight. In fact I am not completely sure about all of them, but my impression with the activists mentioned in the article is that they all pretty much share his views in this respective. However, there is a British organization fighting discrimination of fat people who does use the words obese and overweight and who also is pro-diet/ pro intentional weight loss - but I don't remember its name. There are probably similar organizations in the US and in other countries. Actually, since some very prominent people in the movement (like Marilyn Wann) have edited this article in the past they might be able to comment on their views themselves.--R.C.B. 21:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the "Background" section is particularly non-neutral:

Fat activism faces challenges in addition to bigotry against fat people. Organizations such as the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) and the International Size Acceptance Association (ISAA) are small in number, and people interested in the movement tend to be clustered in larger cities and spread across medium- to small-sized web communities. NAAFA changed leadership around the turn of the century and has been showing a renewed vitality applauded in the size acceptance community.

Perhaps a separate section covering the language issue should be added? Fat vs. obese in particular seems like a worthwhile addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.149.2 (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific Political Stances

Given its strong feminist influences, what does the fat acceptance/liberation movement think about issues like anorexia and bulimia? I'd say that they could provide interesting insights into that and related issues.

[User Calibanu] 14.08, 01 September 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibanu (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some vandalism

The fat acceptance movement, also the fat liberation movement, is a made-up fairytale effort that you probably haven't heard of anywhere besides on wikipedia. Some fat wiki editor probably made it up.

Would've gone in BJAODN, but I see that's no longer around.—Wasabe3543 08:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN has been archived at several other sites, and this one is still taking new contributions [1] Moyabrit 16:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Kind of mean but funny and honestly a movement glorifying people who like sitting all day and spooning lard into their mouth more than exercising or anything else that involves physical exertion until eventually they shun independence and become too obese to move and demand that everyone around them suffer through the inconvenience of bringing them potato sacks full of big macs as they slowly kill themselves is going to get some mocking. Im not vandalizing here, but seriously, thats what fat acceptance is, and deleting this only proves im right and you're too fat to find a counterargument that shows that this movement is anything other than a cruel mockery of civil rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you obviously will live in the belief that fatties like me live in denial and are not willing to face the truth if I delete your comment I won't do it - however, I do not see how your comment does in any way help to further improve the article. However, your argument is one that is often used to criticize the movement, so maybe you might want to add it to the criticism section - but do me a favor and do some proper research if you do so, since there is plenty of research that shows that a) fat people, including fat children, are indeed discriminated against and b) weight-loss attempts fail in the overwhelming majority of cases. Also, there are in fact fat fitness trainers such as Kelly Bliss and Jennifer Portnick - so much for the argument that we fatties all just sit on our fat behinds and never do anything that somehow resembles physical exercise. --91.4.63.95 (talk) (a fat, belly-dancing vegetarian who doesn't own a car and walks/bikes several miles each day to get around)
What I said was never meant to be an attack on the obese, but if you're 600 pounds and fighting to be "accepted" for how "beautiful" it is to cram baconators down your throat and be insanely unhealthy, you need to look in the mirror and take an objective look at the "rights" you're fighting for. A vegetarian who walks/bikes several miles away is most likely a healthy individual regardless of their weight, so therefore you are not someone I'd refer to as a fatty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
You speak the truth. Fat people should be ashamed of themselves. 64.230.85.80 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sizism

Should this realy be redirected from Sizism? I mean Sizism can ALSO mean being against Anorexics/Near Anorexics aswell. OsirisV (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sizism can, of course, include discrimination against people who are thin. But you are assuming in your statement that all thin people are "anorexics/near anorexics," which is not accurate, just as all fat people are not "binge-eaters/near binge-eaters." Eating disorders are not a direct proxy for body size. People have different body sizes for many different reasons, one significant reason being genetics (McPherson, R. "Genetic contributors to obesity." Can J Cardiol. 2007 Aug;23 Suppl A:23A-27A.)
The reason this page redirects from 'sizism' is probably due to the idea that, currently, thinness is considered the predominant cultural ideal for many cultures (in North America and Europe especially), and therefore it is believed that prejudice and discrimination against fat people is more widespread than discrimination against thin people...hence, "sizism." A search on Pubmed for the keywords "anti-fat bias" turns up 11 articles. "Obesity stigma" turns up 75 articles.
In contrast, I could only pull up one relevant article on "thinness stigma" (Mull, DS. "Traditional perceptions of marasmus in Pakistan." Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(2):175-91)), which actually refers to the starvation-related wasting disease marasmus, not the social construction around the phenotype of thinness itself. There are several articles on eating disorders stigma, but, as I said above, eating disorders are not a totally accurate proxy for body size itself. Any issue of stigma against people with eating disorders might best be addressed in the anorexia nervosa entry or eating disorders.
I agree that people of any size (or appearance) that falls outside of the somewhat narrowly-defined cultural "ideal" (or even "average") can experience harassment and ostracization based on their appearance. However, discrimination against fat people is likely most prominent type of size discrimination in most cultures at this point in history, which probably is the rationale behind the redirect from 'sizism.' Peggynature (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I'm going to put this up for deletion. There are few sources, lots of original research, and no mention of the name "Fat acceptance movement." Any thoughts from other editors? --Banime (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely disagree. Please don't create wholesale redirects without discussing. --David Shankbone 17:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make any redirect. Anyway, I'm tagging this for notability and will work on citations. There seems to be some possibilty of proof for this with the large amount of google hits, but until it's improved this article is definitely lacking. --Banime (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That is an improper tag. I realize you are new, but please do not add tags that do not belong. This is an article about a well-known concept, with well known activists (who are also documented on Wikipedia) and there is more than enough Google hits and "further reading" and citation to show notability. This article goes back to 2002. Please edit more carefully. Thank you. --David Shankbone 18:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well it is probably very well-known and has plenty of sources, but the article as it stands now provides no reliable third-party source that has coverage of the movement or any of the definitions presented. Please help other editors find the appropriate sources to cite all of the claims. --Banime (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, but you should ditch now the thinking, "I know nothing about this article and it could use citations, so I will see if it should be deleted." You will win few friends on WP this way. There are many uncited articles, and citations are required for controversial statements and not every statement needs to be cited. WP:CITE. --David Shankbone 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
See below --Banime (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and references

Per a discussion with Banime on my talk page, I agree that it was inappropriate for Banime to weigh in advocating deletion. (Coming so soon after the deletion of the Weedpunk article which Baime wrote, I question the good faith).

However, Banime is right that more citations are needed, so I have added some {{fact}} tags and a {{notability}} tag ... because while the article references individual activists and a few publications advocating fat acceptance, it offers no evidence that there is a fat acceptance movement. I think it's likely that there is such such a movement, but the article, but the article offers no evidence for that.

I'll clarify what I mean by that. The {{fact}} tags in the lead section identify the points which need referencing to establish the notability of the concept. At the moment, the article identifies advocates and some literature, but that alone is not a "movement". It would be quite possible to look at various issues in society, identify some activism and find some literature making similar points, and then attach the label "movement" to them. However, on its own that amounts to a synthesis, a form of original research which consists of collating info from dift sources and formulating from those sources a conclusion which is not directly supported by any of the individual sources.

An article on "fat acceptance" could quite reasonably identify activists and literature without needing to provide evidence that they are part pf a wider movement. However, this article explicitly makes the claim that that fat acceptance is a movement (rather than just the stance of a few individuals), but offers no evidence for that claim.

I suspect that such evidence probably does exist, but as it stands the article offers no evidence for the notability of a movement. The {{notability}} tag should remain until references are provided to reliable sources which demonstrate that "fat acceptance" is notable as a movement of the form described in the article's lead section, rather than as a series of isolated phenomena on a similar theme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the clarification and help. I'm sure you can work to fix the article David Shankbone, it seems very well known but on the article itself there were only four unrelated sources to a fat acceptance movement, which is why I brought it up in the first place. I was wrong to advocate deletion right away, but, in my defense, if it was not in good faith at least I would have just done it without asking anyone first (this board and BrownHairedGirl, a more experienced editor than I) --Banime (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"Weighing both sides: morality, mortality, and framing contests over obesity" by Saguy and Riley (J Health Polit Policy Law. 2005 Oct;30(5):869-921) references the "fat acceptance movement." "The weight dilemma: a range of philosophical perspectives" by Neumark-Sztainer (Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Mar;23 Suppl 2:S31-7) references the "size acceptance movement" which is another term for the fat acceptance movement. The existence of organizations such as COFRA (Coalition of Fat Rights Activists), NAAFA (National Association for the Advancement of Fat Acceptance), ISAA (International Size Acceptance Asssociation), and the Counsel on Size and Weight Discrimination, further support the idea that a cohesive movement exists. There has also been talk of developing a "fat studies" curriculum at the university level, notably at Smith College, http://sophia.smith.edu/sizematters/FATA/ A Google search on "fat studies" turns up some MSM coverage of fat studies in universities.Peggynature (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This page should be deleted. Its existance only legitimizes a bullshit cause designed around people who don't want to get made fun of for being overweight but also don't want to expend the effort to get off their burger bloated asses and get some exercise. Now, i have a feeling somebodys going to mark this as vandalism, but it isnt. Im saying the way things are, there is no "fat acceptance movement" except in the minds of fatties and fat fetishists who think theyre somehow beautiful because they like banging 700 pound chicks and cant get a skinny girl, and they hide their shame by making up mockeries of civil rights like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, here we go again. Look at the whole discussion page and the archives and you will find that what you said has been said before plenty of times and it still is no valid argument for deletion. That you think fat acceptance should not exist does not matter - what matters is IF it exists and if its existence can be verified. --145.116.230.249 (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't need a valid argument for deletion, it needs a valid argument for inclusion. And it doesn't matter if it exists and if its existence can be verified, but whether the existence is notable. --Banime (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Banime, since you started this discussion there were at least two sources (in this case scientific journal articles added which mention the movement. Which means I and a few other people are working on the notability issue.
Other than what is mentioned in the article there also has been quite a bit of news coverage of the movement recently or more specifically of "fatosphere" blogs which make up a significant part of the movement. In addition, the oldest organization for fat accptance, NAAFA, has existed for almost 40 years and there are publications by and about organziations such as the Fat Underground and the Fat Liberation Front that go back to the 1970s, some of which can be found here: [2]. There is an interdisciplinary field of academic study called fat studies (see here [3]) and scientists self-identifying as scholars in this field. Finally, self-identified members of the movement are not only localized in the US but also in Canada, Australia, the UK, and various other European countries.
Also, user 24.188.240.123 did not bring up the supposed lack of notability as a reason for deletion but instead launched into a personal attack on fat people. He (or she) has also repeatedly vandalized the article and this discussion - the last time yesterday - and has added a similar comment to the one above, again attacking fat people. I did not revert this last comment because it was clearly identifiable as vandalism - however, both of the attacks were impolite, vile, and,, considering that it should be clear to everyone that some people working on this article are members of the movement and fat, also clearly personal. So I really don't see how my reply to his comment (telling him that his personal opinion about the movement has no influence on if this article should or should not exist) is a reason to bring up the notability issue again.--145.116.230.249 (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Correction: 24.188.240.123 did bring up the notability issue above - although he does not name it that way. However, his comment is still largely a personal attack against fat people.--145.116.230.249 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the burden of proving notability is on the side of the people who want this article to remain on Wikipedia. We are working on it. However, I don't think it is fair to seriously entertain the arguments of people who vandalize the page and whose objections amount to hate speech. Those are not valid criticisms of the article or the notability of the movement, and I doubt those critics have read the article itself or looked at any of the sources cited. The fat acceptance movement has been picking up mainstream media attention recently (though there has been media attention before), as 145.116.230.249 notes. I am still committed to reinforcing the citations on this article, but my time is limited just now as I head into exams at school. I will continue working on it.Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I found another citation that references the "fat acceptance movement" specifically, and would appreciate if someone could add it to the article: The Dual-Pathway Model of Social Movement Participation: The Case of the Fat Acceptance Movement
Stefan Sturmer, Bernd Simon, Michael Loewy, Heike Jorger
Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Mar., 2003), pp. 71-82Peggynature (talk)
I added the resepective reference --145.116.230.249 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
...and there are more. A Google Scholar search turned up 39 articles for the search term "fat acceptance movement" (with quotes.) I will add the citations when I have a chance to organize them. Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are some media links that discussed the fat acceptance movement - The New York Times article references 'the fatosphere' whose members identify themselves as part of the 'movement.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/health/22fblogs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.bitchmagazine.org/article/big-trouble
http://www.timeout.com/chicago/articles/out-there/24098/weighing-in
http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/red-022008-fat-main,0,1963256.story
http://www.orlandoweekly.com/features/story.asp?id=12128
http://www.reason.com/news/show/123151.html
Peggynature (talk)
Just checking in: how does everyone think we are coming along with the notability thing? So far, we've added several peer-reviewed articles as references, at least three of which mention fat acceptance as a movement specifically. I've also added a huge Further Reading section, mainly books talking about fat acceptance and the fat acceptance movement, and External Links that link to fat acceptance organizations and blogs that discuss the fat acceptance movement. Above, I referenced several MSM articles that discuss the recent interest in fat acceptance. The article still needs major cleaning up, more citations, and some vigilance to guard against vandalism -- but how is notability coming along? Have we established that the fat acceptance movement exists? I think so. Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have now removed the notability tag. I have read the general notability guideline, and have added many reliable sources to the article to justify statements that the fat acceptance movement exists and states as its mission what the article says. The article still needs a lot of cleaning up and organization, and several citations added to specific statements (or to have those statements removed if they are not verifiable.) But as it stands, I believe we have demonstrated notability. I would appreciate a conversation on this talk page before anyone puts the article up for deletion or wants to add the notability tag again. Peggynature (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Hey Peggynature, it's Kal, hopefully i'm doing this correctly please advise if i need to change what i'm doing. I found the following articles, their full references and absracts below, for inclusion on the page. Please either advise on how to update the actual page or your welcome to do it. I'm quite new to wikipedia. *smiles*.

"Medical modelling of obesity: a transition from action to experience in a 20th century American medical textbook" by Virginia W. Chang1,2 and Nicholas A. Christakis, Sociology of Health & Illness Vol. 24 No. 2 2002 ISSN 0141–9889, pp. 151–177. It's a rather long abstract, this article references the following points of the fat-acceptance points of: obesity as epidemic, statements of whether obsesity should be controlled, fatness = disease, questions of personal responsibility of obesity, definition of obese, views on causes and treatment of obesity. The article is a content analysis of medical texts from 1927 to the 2000's in reference to obsesity views.
"(Un/Be) Coming Out?" by Samantha Murray, Social Semiotics Vol. 15, No. 2 August 2005). Short Summary: In this paper, I take up Sullivan’s point about the problematic act of ‘coming out’ as a fat woman. I critique the problematic model of subjectivity the Fat Acceptance Movement is founded on, given the ways in which I live my fat body are always multiple, contradictory and eminently ambiguous.
"Big Trouble. Are Eating disorders the lavendor meanace of the fat acceptance movement" by Lily-Rygh Glen. Winter 2008, Issue 28 of Bitch. This article emphasises a topic that can be placed in the Issues with the movement section? What do you think? I can forward the article if you'd like.
"Canadian dietitians’ views and practices regarding obesity and weight management" by S. I. Barr, K. V. Yarker, R. Levy-Milne & G. E. Chapman, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, The British Dietetic Association Ltd 2004 J Hum Nutr Dietet, 17, pp. 503–512. Abstract: Objective To provide insight into Canadian dietitians’ attitudes and practices regarding obesity and weight management. Design Cross-sectional mail survey of a stratified random sample of members of Canadian dietetic associations. Subjects A total of 514 dietitians (74% of those surveyed), 350 (69%) of whom actively counselled overweight/obese clients. Measurements Participants received a questionnaire to assess dietitians’ attitudes regarding obesity and overweight, views regarding their role in weight management, counselling practices, and the criteria used to judge success. Demographic variables were collected. Results Most dietitians believed that obesity contributes to morbidity and mortality, and that small weight losses produced important health benefits. However, 80% agreed that health indicators other than weight loss should be the focus of obesity management, and 55% specifically recommended that clients not weigh themselves. Instead, weight management was promoted by recommending healthy eating and increased physical activity. Three-quarters agreed that they are the profession best trained to manage obesity but two-thirds believed their time would be better spent preventing rather than managing obesity. Dietitians most valued education received from on-the-job support and mentoring from other dietitians. Participants reported wanting to learn more about motivational and behavioural modification counselling techniques. Conclusions Canadian dietitians follow a lifestyle approach to weight management. Studies are required to formally assess the effectiveness of various aspects of this approach.
‘Gluttony or sloth’: critical geographies of bodies and morality in (anti)obesity policy Bethan Evans ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author. Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2006. Abstract: In many countries, obesity is high on public health policy agendas, and geographical research has begun to engage with obesity. However, obesity is a highly contested term, and recent debates about geographers’ engagement with policy, and critical discussions of the presence of bodies in medical geography, bear great relevance for developing a critical perspective on dominant ‘obesity discourse’. Through a critical reading of a recent UK policy document, this paper considers the presence of bodies in (anti)obesity campaigns, calling for a more critical approach to the medicalization of body size to be central to future geographical work on obesity.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 1996, Vol. 27.No. 2, 175-183 "The "If Only I Were Thin. . ." Treatment Program: Decreasing the Stigmatizing Effects of Fatness" Beatrice E. Robinson and Jane G. Bacon. Paper deals with treatments with eating disorder and addresses the myths of being fat. Great resource for cititation to points made within the fat acceptance movement.
Professional Psychology: Research 2000. Vol. 31, No. 6, Awareness and Prevention of Bias Against Fat Clients in Psychotherapy, Kristen Davis-Coelho, Jennifer Waltz, and Bob Davis-Coelho University of Montana. Abstract: Are the psychotherapeutic experiences of fat clients negatively affected by the cultural bias against fat people? This empirical study demonstrates that clients' weight may negatively affect psychologists' clinical judgments of and treatment planning for fat clients. Strategies to combat fat bias are presented for both training programs and clinicians. Information provided for training programs includes specific guidelines for curriculum development. Strategies presented for clinicians include assessment of one's own bias, self-education, treatment alternatives, and practice recommendations.

More to come... Kal-spontaneous (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, Kal, thanks for the help! If you read through the article and find places where those references could be cited to verify a particular statement, go ahead and try to add them by editing the article itself, if you want. I haven't had time to look at this article much in the last couple of weeks, due to final exams, but it looks like you've found a lot of good things. The only one cited already is the "Lavender Menace" article from Bitch magazine. ~Peggynature (not signed in)
Yesterday I started going through and adding citations. I also added some sentencing in with example so to cite other articles as well. Sorry i have APA style referencing indoctrinated into me from writing psychology papers. I'm going through the Movement today section and re-writing it so it doesn't sound like an advertisement. Also hopefully adding some citations there too. Kal-spontaneous (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I just saw all the citations you added -- thanks a ton for helping out. I was feeling overwhelmed the last few weeks and didn't have time or energy to put into this, so I am glad you are here. As far as I know, APA style is fine! If we need to, we can work on standardizing all the referencing formats later. It's most important just to get the references up there, and citing the various statements in the article -- as well as rewriting the parts that need to be rewritten. I was reluctant to touch that part as yet because I wasn't sure if I'd be stepping on other writers' toes, but it seems like no one is complaining yet, so go for it :) Again, thank you for helping. Peggynature (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you on that, getting references up and then going through and standardizing. that's been my plan. I feel accomplished by helping out. Keeps me outta trouble lol (not really but it does occupy the time) Kal-spontaneous (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Today I also removed the "Weasel words" tag, because after re-reading through the entire article, those instances have either been edited out, or had citations added to back up the attribution. Please discuss before re-adding the tag to this article. Thanks Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Remaining issues on this article, as I see it, are possibly more references to add (there is, at present, one "citation needed" tag), and a general edit and clean-up of the writing. Not to bust anyone's nuts, but the writing is a little herky-jerky and awkward in places, and there is the possibility the sections could be reorganized. I may work on that a bit this summer, if no one objects. Throw in your two cents if you'd like to help or add suggestions, objections. Once it's smoothed through and everything is referenced, and the references are verified and organized, I think we could remove the "needs additional citations" tag as well. Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links: Some help please?

I'm interested in contributing to the page on fat acceptance, but I am a new Wikipedia user, so I would appreciate some guidance and help.

I've already added a list of books to "Further Reading," and I would like to add some External Links to various websites that discuss fat acceptance. Most of these websites are blogs (e.g. Big Fat Blog, and the fat acceptance blog feed called Notes from the Fatosphere) but also organizations like Association for Size Diversity and Health (ASDAH), International Size Acceptance Association (ISAA), and No Lose

I've looked at the "Restrictions on Linking," but still not sure how can I add these links without having my changes reverted by a bot. I appreciate your help. Peggynature (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, another stupid question: why are the changes I made to this entry (Further Reading and External Links) only visible after I sign in to Wikipedia? Is there some sort of approval that has to occur before my changes are accepted onto the publicly-viewable entry? Or is there a technical glitch going on? Thanks for your help. Peggynature (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
And, not to pee on anyone's parade, but where did the link to www.omgoddess.com come from? I don't think it is relevant to "fat acceptance movement" -- I can't find any legit information on its About page, and it links to an Ebay page selling jewelry. In my quick perusal, I didn't even see any posts on the site that referenced 'fat acceptance.' I could be wrong, but could someone look into this? I thought External Links additions were protected by a bot. Peggynature (talk)
Could someone please delete the above link (OMGoddess) from the External Links section? I have tried, but it keeps reverting. Thanks! Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Despite advocates' claims to the contrary, some studies show that fat people are more likely than others to be in poor health, at a time when health care costs are rising: In 2006, the CDC estimated that 10 percent of current health care costs are due to obesity

There actually was a recent study contradicting this. When I remember correctly the study did state that smokers and fat people die earlier than "healthy" people, however, it also concluded that this fact actually leads to lower health care costs over the span of lifetime for fat people and smokers since the people that require the most expensive health care are in fact old people (i.e., if you have a lower life span than average than you will need less health care over your life time). Does anybody have the reference?--145.116.230.249 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference is here: Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity Peggynature (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I added it to the article.--145.116.230.249 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The real cost of fatties is not widely known, few that are eaten by fatties in an extreme eat attack mode will need health care assistance or funerals they will be digested by a pork person. it is estimated that over 24,000 yearly unsolved missing persons cases can be attributed to fat fucks blobbing around and eating people.
...and you're next. Peggynature (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Come on, Peggynature, you know trolls don't taste... by the way, thanks for all the work you have put into this--145.116.230.249 (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Movement Today Section

Ok, so we all notice that there's a sign saying that it's written like an advertisement. I have no problem re-writing it, though i don't want to offend anyone who originally wrote. Here are some ideas that were rolling around my head about the section. There are wonderful links and blogs talked about how about in the section. How about we pair down what blogs we talk about putting the ones previously mentioned in additional readings section. I would also love to add what the movement is doing other than online things, like are we having annual conferences etc. I've also been searching for publication articles citing current activities though it's hard. Does anyone else have ideas on how to improve this section? Kal-spontaneous (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok...I went ahead and re-wrote it transfering links as examples footnoted. I tried to stay true to what was written before in terms of what the movement is doing with lessening the feel of advertising. Hopefully this accomplishes what it was supposed to. Kal-spontaneous (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we could pare down the blogs mentioned, since blogs aren't considered strong sources for Wikipedia -- the main reason I wanted to link to them in the first place is because a lot of the fat acceptance movement activities and discourse are currently taking place on blogs, so, yeah -- what can you do in that circumstance? It would be wonderful to have more examples of offline activism, and there is actually a ton of discourse in the academic literature on fat acceptance, as you've found in your research! As far as conferences go, there are always NAAFA events, there are some academic, fat studies events (or were in the past, at Smith College in Massachusetts through a group called Size Matters), and then there was/is the Think Tank hosted by Big Fat Blog in Chicago. Also, maybe we could mention something about the recent anti-discrimination legislation that was being considered in Massachusetts, for which there was a public forum including many fat acceptance advocates to support the bill? Peggynature (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I already posted what i wrote, take a look and let me know how you like the new format. Blogs and things are still there, even book titles just as footnotes though. I love the idea of the mention of the recent legislation in the US. I don't know what's been going on in Canada but i think a paragraph would be wonderful describing the international offline policy/health/media etc that the movement is doing as well. I just don't know much about what we're doing or where to find it. Anyways take a look at what i did and let me know what you think Kal-spontaneous (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
WE DO NOT NEED TO ACCEPT YOU, LARD ASSES. GO GET SOME DISCIPLINE AND LOSE WEIGHT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.169.5 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL. That's...intelligent. And eloquent. Sir, I salute you. Stay Klassy. Peggynature (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)